Thankfully i) only six weeks until the beginning of the UK Supreme Court Michaelmas term, ii) only three weeks before the European Court of Justice gets back to work after the summer break and iii) two and a half weeks until this Kat gets pulled through Glasgow by taking part in the 10k run, embarrassingly, by her rather athletic father. Although the Supreme Court appears to have the longest break from everyday court business, it hasn't forgotten us: July's Permission to Appeal results have been published. The European Court of justice's Judicial Calendar also previews some of the IP related judgments we will have the pleasure of reading as Autumn (this Kat's favourite season - good for catching spiders as they scurry inside for warmth) and Winter set in.
UKSC Permission to Appeal
Werit (UK) Ltd was granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision finding of patent infringement. Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd  EWCA Civ 303 is available here.
Although not in any way connected with IP, the scope of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is to be considered in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others. The contested decision can be found here.
The eighth chamber of the Court of Justice will be delivering judgment in Case C-96/11 P Storck v OHIM in early September in which Storck challenge the General Court's decision to dismiss a claim for annulment by the OHIM concerning the rejection of an application for a three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse (yummy for Kats and cats alike). The grounds of appeal can be read here.
Polo, the curious game of riding a horse and swinging mallets around while eating mints, will also be in the limelight following an appeal against a decision dismissing an action for annulment for the word mark 'U.S. POLO ASSN.' in Case C-327/11 P. The issues concern an alleged misinterpretation and misapplication by the General Court in concluding that the Board of Appeal had been correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between trade marks 'US. POLO ASSN' and 'POLO-POLO' (earlier mark). Read the overview here.
|Polo Ball Cat|
A human rights point as been raised in Case T-295/11 Duscholux Iberica v OHIM, with the applicant claiming inter alia infringement of Article 6 ECHR relating to the right to a fair trial and an erroneous conclusion that there was no risk of confusion between the trademarks 'duschy' for goods in Classes 11 and 20 and 'DUSCHO Harmony' for goods in Classes 6, 11 and 19. The overview is available here.
There are, of course, many more judgments on the way to keep us going for the last half of the year, such as the judgment of the General Court in Schrader's joined cases concerning Community plant variety rights. Yet, perhaps, most anticipated is the Grand Chamber's judgment in joined cases C-295/11 Italy v Council and C-274/11 Spain v Council, which seeks to annul Council Decision 2011/167/EU authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, alleging a misuse of powers in failing to respect the judicial system of the EU.
Sadly, copyright issues are seriously under-represented in the above overview, but some IPKat readers will hopefully enjoy a series of posts beginning next week on some of the most famous comic book industry cases in anticipation of the 9th Circuit Court's judgment (US), hopefully imminent, on Warner Bros' (DC Comics) appeal concerning rights in Super